Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
This argument a based entirely on the following faulty assumptions.
1. If we do not take aggressive actions against the terrorists, they will not attack us.
2. We are somehow to blame for being attacked.
|
No, my argument is neither based on those assumptions, nor does it include those assumptions. I don't see how you could say that it does.
(a) The question is not "whether" we should or should not take aggressive actions against terrorists. The question many people raise, which you seem unwilling to limit the discussion to, is whether this was the _right_ aggressive action to take. However, I wasn't even raising that question.
Bilmore's homey analogy is right on point -- and describes the likely result if it all works out eventually. One could envision modifying that analogy if things go wrong (other insects coming to aid the bees or avenge them); or the hose being left on too long and flooding the basement; or a leak in the pipe severely damaging the house and/or the foundation, etc.
(b) The fact that your second point introduces the concept of "blame", which is entirely absent from any statement by me or any quoted statement by Blix in this string, suggests that you're responding from a whole range of emotions rather than addressing what's been said.
S_A_M
